Alan Ivo Greer v The Queen - [2003] NZCA 82

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA197/01
THE QUEEN
v
ALAN IVO GREER
Hearing:10 March 2003

Coram:Glazebrook J
Hammond J
O'Regan J
Appearances: Appellant in person

Dr D L Stevens QC as amicus curiae
B J Horsley for Respondent

Judgment:4 June 2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Introduction
[1]       Mr Greer was convicted after a jury trial in the District Court at Palmerston North on 22 May 2001 on counts of kidnapping, threatening to kill and injuring with intent to injure. The complainant in the case was Mr Greer’s estranged partner. Mr Greer appeals against his conviction.
Appellant’s submissions
[2]       Mr Greer filed the original notice of appeal in person. In the intervening period between the filing of the notice of appeal and the hearing of the appeal Dr Stevens QC was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Dr Stevens filed submissions, which expanded and elaborated on Mr Greer’s grounds of appeal. Mr Greer also filed written submissions and we heard from both Mr Greer and Dr Stevens orally. There are four grounds of appeal.
[3]       The first ground is that there was lack of disclosure on the part of the police. This is not a complaint of lack of disclosure of police material relating to the charges actually faced by Mr Greer but a complaint about a lack of wider disclosure relating to a number of police inquiries conducted in relation to Mr Greer since 1994. By the time the appeal was heard Mr Greer had received disclosure of most of this material with the exception of material relating to what was called Operation Huhu. Mr Greer believes that the Operation Huhu files could contain material that would have enabled the complainant’s credibility to be attacked.
[4]       When Mr Greer requested disclosure before his trial the police position was that Mr Greer had been provided with full disclosure of the Operation Huhu material at the time the charges arising out of that operation were being dealt with and that it would not be disclosed again. This approach was endorsed by the Crown Solicitor. Mr Greer says that he no longer had the material. Indeed he says he never had the material. As he was represented by counsel it may well be that his then counsel received the disclosure material and that it was not passed on to Mr Greer but only discussed with him.
[5]       Although it seemed very unlikely that the Operation Huhu file would contain anything of importance out of an excess of caution this Court ordered that the police make disclosure of the Operation Huhu files to Mr Greer and gave Mr Greer and Dr Stevens leave to file further submissions setting out how the Operation Huhu files could have been used to challenge the complainant’s credibility with leave for the Crown to reply.
[6]       After a thorough search the police were unable to locate all of the Operation Huhu files. What was located has been disclosed. The Crown has filed a memorandum…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Alan Ivo Greer v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NZCA 82
Decision Date: 4 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alan Ivo Greer appealed against his conviction by the District Court at Palmerston North on charges of kidnapping, threatening to kill, and injuring with intent to injure. The complainant in the case was his estranged partner. The Court of Appeal heard four grounds of appeal: lack of police disclosure, lack of access to court records, inadequate facilities to prepare a defence, and the failure to consider a lesser charge. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

In terms of police disclosure, the court found that the material in question related to collateral issues and would not have assisted in the defence. Regarding the lack of access to court records, the court noted that Greer had not availed himself of the opportunity to inspect files or appoint an agent, and that it was unlikely the material would have supported his application for a change of venue. The court also found that the denial of computer facilities and difficulties with visitors did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as Greer had chosen to be represented by counsel and had not shown specific prejudice. Finally, the court held that the judge was not required to leave a lesser charge to the jury, as there was sufficient evidence to convict on the charge of injuring with intent to injure.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The Court of Appeal found that the trial was conducted fairly, and there was no miscarriage of justice in the proceedings.

Orders